DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BILBONDER** · 05-04-2010, 12:11 PM

Nanavira Thera writes the following:

"1. The traditional interpretation of paticcasamuppāda (of its usual twelve-factored formulation, that is to say) apparently has its roots in the Patisambhidāmagga , or perhaps in the Abhidhammapitaka. This interpretation is fully expounded in the Visuddhimagga . It can be briefly summarized thus: avijjā and sankhārā are kamma in the previous existence, and their vipāka is viññāna, nāmarūpa, salāyatana, phassa, and vedanā, in the present existence; tanhā, upādāna, and bhava, are kamma in the present existence, and their vipāka is jāti and jarāmarana in the subsequent existence.

"2. This Note will take for granted first, that the reader is acquainted with this traditional interpretation, and secondly, that he is dissatisfied with it. It is not therefore proposed to enter into a detailed discussion of this interpretation, but rather to indicate briefly that dissatisfaction with it is not unjustified, and then to outline what may perhaps be found to be a more satisfactory approach."

A thoroughgoing (and perhaps controversial) analysis thus ensues, which I highly recommend.

05-04-2010, 12:11 PM	#1
BILBONDER Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 382 Senior Member	The Paticcasamuppada Thread Nanavira Thera writes the following: "1. The traditional interpretation of paticcasamuppāda (of its usual twelve-factored formulation, that is to say) apparently has its roots in the Patisambhidāmagga , or perhaps in the Abhidhammapitaka. This interpretation is fully expounded in the Visuddhimagga . It can be briefly summarized thus: avijjā and sankhārā are kamma in the previous existence, and their vipāka is viññāna, nāmarūpa, salāyatana, phassa, and vedanā, in the present existence; tanhā, upādāna, and bhava, are kamma in the present existence, and their vipāka is jāti and jarāmarana in the subsequent existence. "2. This Note will take for granted first, that the reader is acquainted with this traditional interpretation, and secondly, that he is dissatisfied with it. It is not therefore proposed to enter into a detailed discussion of this interpretation, but rather to indicate briefly that dissatisfaction with it is not unjustified, and then to outline what may perhaps be found to be a more satisfactory approach." A thoroughgoing (and perhaps controversial) analysis thus ensues, which I highly recommend.
	Quote